The other night, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman challenged those who have groused about the severely unbalanced regular-season schedule.
He politely challenged us to come up with something better.
Under the format implemented this season, the Avalanche played: a) each Northwest Division opponent eight times; b) each Pacific and Central Division opponent four times; c) one home game against each team in the Northeast Division; d) one road game against each team in the Atlantic Division; and e) no games against the Southeast Division. The interconference opponents will rotate each season if the current format remains in place.
“If we spread out the division games a little better, when we have the luxury of doing the schedule in a right way, in a timely way, I think we can make the schedule even better,” Bettman said. “In every sport it’s always an issue. But our most recent research said the fans, by a pretty wide margin, are very supportive of the divisional play and the rivalries.”
I’m not disputing the research, but I’ve heard from a lot of season-ticket holders who want to see all NHL opponents. They also got sick of seeing those Northwest Division opponents, especially in a schedule that included several back-to-back sets and bunched-up games, as happened when the Avalanche played the Canucks six times in Colorado’s first 26 games.
This divisional emphasis might have been popular in the Atlantic and Northeast Division cities, which tend to be the most provincial and regionally oriented markets in the league, but the system wasn’t as well-received elsewhere.
I brought up the negative, that the Capitals, for example, with the league’s brightest young star – Alexander Ovechkin – didn’t play in Colorado this season. Also, they stand only a 50 percent chance of playing at the Pepsi Center in 2006-07 under the format that brings each Eastern Conference team in only once every three seasons. That’s even worse than the old NHL system, which was more haphazard but had the same bottom line: Each market didn’t get to see every team every season.
Bettman said the paucity of home games against interconference opponents was a “trade-off” for the positives in the system.
“If you can come up with a better methodology, we’ll take a look at it,” he said.
He wasn’t saying that snidely, emphasizing there is no “pride of authorship here” if someone can come up with a better plan.
How about the following. This is so simple, I’m sure others have suggested it and the league has pondered it, but I’m still going to put it on the table. This trades off an acceptance of the divisional rivalries with retooling the rest of the schedule:
* Stick with the eight games against each divisional opponent but spread them out. That will keep the Eastern power brokers happy.
* Home-and-home with the other 25 teams.
* Total: 82 games.
The acknowledged negative: Because the Avalanche, for example, is playing the same number of games (two) against the Maple Leafs as the Sharks, and teams would be penalized more than ever in the conference standings, relatively speaking, for being in tough divisions; or, conversely, rewarded for being in rotten divisions.
A fair way to address that weakness would be to toss out conference designations completely, at least when determining playoff pairings and brackets. Seed the division winners 1 through 6 and take the next 10 teams in order of points, in essence, cross-seeding the playoffs. That also would have a side benefit. If the best teams in the league happen to be traditional conference rivals Detroit and Colorado, or Boston and the Rangers, there’s a chance they could meet in the finals.
That last part – getting rid of or ignoring the conference designations – probably is a little too revolutionary for the NHL, so it’s a loss leader.
Terry Frei can be reached at 303-820-1895 or tfrei@denverpost.com.
